Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 --- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-15 23:17:38 EDT --- > but in case the documentation is not big, > there is no need to add it to a separate doc subpackage. Documentation is not actually being subpackaged here: the flag would just be for whether the docs get build or not: generally no reason not to do that, though occasionally docs building can break with certain versions of haddock say. > Here is a patch: > http://till.fedorapeople.org/ghx-X11-buildcond.patch Thanks - will try to fold that into the templates. > Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for making > sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a > Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the > pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the > rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel > installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore. Good question. I see what you're saying, but since ghc libraries change ABI with every minor version I think it is useful to document what version a library has been built with - though I suppose one can also look at the binary package metadata for that. Let's think a little more about it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review